| S.NO | POLICE CUSTODY | JUDICIAL CUSTODY |
| 1. Place after remand | During the ‘Police Remand’ suspected person is kept into ‘Police Lock up’ / police station. In case of Prateek Mangla v. State of Haryana, Prateek Mangal was given to police custody for one day. He was kept in Surajkund Police Station. | During the ‘Judicial Remand’ suspected person is kept into ‘Jail’/ prision. When Prateek Mangla was given judicial remand, he was kept in Faridabad District Jail. He was kept there 28 day |
| 2. period after remand | According to section 167 of Cr.P.C. maximum period for which ‘Police Remand’ can be granted is 15 days except in special case for example under Section 21 of the MaharashtraControl of Organised Crime Act, 1999 police remand for 30 days is allowed. | Section 167 also deal with statutory/default bail. After 15 days judicial remand may be allowed. Magistrate may authorise detention beyond15 day. But if the police report is not submitted in 90 days (where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years) or 60 days (where the investigation relates to any other offence) as the case may be, the accused shall be entitled for default bail. |
| 3. Interrogation | Purpose of Police Remand is to take custody and interrogate him. This custody is also taken so that documents, weapons etc. can be recovered. Recovery is relevant under Section 29 of the Indian Evidence Act. Police demanded Police Remand of Prateek to go with him to Jind (Faridabad to Jind) for recovery of money and other document. The Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed. But on next day, the CJM found that IO did not go to Jind with Prateek. The CJM separated to IO from investigation | He is not interrogated. During Judicial Custody, the police officer in charge of the case is not allowed to interrogate the suspect except with permission of Court in special circumstances. Purpose of judicial custody is to prevent accused from repetition of offence and save witnesses and documents etc. In Case of Judicial Remand of Prateek, the Investigating Officer never went to jail to visit with him. In that jail, there were more than two thousands prisoners. |
| 4.Responsibility | A police officer in charge of a suspect may treat the suspect arbitrarily. In Police Custody, suspect becomes responsibility of Officer in charge of the case. | In Judicial Custody, suspect becomes responsibility of Court and Jail Superintendence. |
| 5.Authorizing authority | Police authority cannot take ‘Police Remand’ suo motu. Only Court can authorise for ‘Police Remand | Judicial authority authorizes ‘Judicial Remand’ |
previous post
Rohini Thomare
Rohini is law scholar at Faculty of Law Delhi University. She is member of Legal Aid society. An energetic writer and traveler. She loves reading and writing about law and Constitution.